Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

/me opens up article

/me sees "2300 Armata tanks by 2020"

/me closes article

"Daddy, you're not even trying!"

 

What I know is, CAST already suggested several important points to Putin, and he accepted.

 

LOL. So CAST says, to make themselves look cool. Reality? Not sure if he even knows about their existence. Tho their latest report seemed good, I'm not sure how much people "at the top" actually notice them. They did create a lot of fuzz by bashing Navy procurement, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/me opens up article

/me sees "2300 Armata tanks by 2020"

/me closes article

But still I trust all other numbers and indications, supported by various economic journal's report and data. Russian economy is falling.

"Daddy, you're not even trying!"

Not sure why you're doing this, just you don't want to believe the Russian economic breakdown? Whatever you think or try, it is fact that financial future of Russia is not nice.

 

LOL. So CAST says, to make themselves look cool. Reality? Not sure if he even knows about their existence. Tho their latest report seemed good, I'm not sure how much people "at the top" actually notice them. They did create a lot of fuzz by bashing Navy procurement, that's for sure.

CAST is Moscow-based think tank group, consist of various experts. I don't really understand why you are blaming most well known Russian think-tank group, but they tried to reform the RuAF. Putin accepted their 'opinion' during Sochi forum. Sorry for Rus navy, but Russia just can't afford all of the plans.

Edited by Battlefront.com
Fixed the quotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 152mm cannon upgrade wont be standard on the platform for some time, if at all. It will be a proof of concept thing I should think. We will see anyway, it can be done, its been done before, it certainly wont be a low velocity gun either, but I dont think it will become the standard. Logistics of current shell stocks would indicate otherwise and it would be cheaper to just equip the first T-14 unit with a vehicle that can use its current munition stocks.

The big problem is realistic ammo load. Unless someone develops a more efficient (bang for volume)propellent, that has the sorts of military properties needed for such a vehicle, then the 152mm is not practical for a tank sort of vehicle simply because there will be no way to stock the volume of ammo necessary to make the vehicle effective.

 

 

Might be an excellent APS system, but I really see scarce evidence that it is capable of indentifying and intercepting top-attack missiles.

 

Nor I. It could be there, somewhere, and it might even work... but as the gate keeper for what gets into CM... there's absolutely no way I'd put that sort of thing into the game without some very solid information first.

 

Is vertically-luanched Quick Kill APS unable to intercept horizontal threats?

 

I very, very much doubt it. Raytheon's system is supposed to take on all threats from a vertical launch, but it's not been proven yet. Although it might sound like a national bias, but based on track record if the US can't develop a high tech weapon due to technical issues it's unlikely anybody else is going to do it first.

 

Not only that, but they also need to find a cure for cancer and to define the meaning of life... no sweat, right?

Nah, because if they don't fix their political system soonish, the demographics will mean there won't be any Russians left in Russia to get cancer or ponder the meaning of life :D

 

 

Not sure why you're doing this, just you don't want to believe the Russian economic breakdown?

and

CAST is Moscow-based think tank group, consist of various experts. I don't really understand why you are blaming most well known Russian think-tank group, but they tried to reform the RuAF. Putin accepted their 'opinion' during Sochi forum. Sorry for Rus navy, but Russia just can't afford all of the plans.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it tried to have it all without the resources to sustain its strategy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was really bad for Russia. I can understand why a Russian doesn't want to contemplate where Putin's path will take the country.

BTW, I don't think think the West can sustain itself long term either. Europe is already hollowing out its defenses and has been doing so for years. Eventually the US will have to face the same sorts of choices. But not with this Congress. They are in full can kicking down the road mode. It's annoying that almost all the ones doing the kicking won't live long enough to experience the results. But that's just me going off topic :D The only point here is to say that there are natural laws of sustainability that no nation, not even the US, can blow off for ever. Russia is just much closer to the tipping point than the US.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very, very much doubt it. Raytheon's system is supposed to take on all threats from a vertical launch, but it's not been proven yet. Although it might sound like a national bias, but based on track record if the US can't develop a high tech weapon due to technical issues it's unlikely anybody else is going to do it first.

 

Well, that was a bit of a rhetorical question.  Quick Kill can deal with horizontal threats.  I think too many conclusions are being drawn based on the orientation of the tubes.  Perhaps they are oriented horizontally to improve efficiency against the highest velocity threats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the author is too pessimistic in some sense, but generally his points are valid and important, and references are well provided.

I don't think the author is too pessimistic in the sense that Russia is going to have to face reality at some point and that means:

1. Cutting back on the annual expenditure for R&D. This will have the effect of delaying the start of full production

2. Reducing the feature set to either reduce R&D needs and/or reduce the costs of the final product

3. Reduced annual acquisition of the new vehicles once they are ready

Note that I did not add "cancel the whole thing and go with something cheaper". That is, of course, a possibility. However, I believe Russia is fully committed to these new vehicles even if it means a total economic collapse as a result. So while it is theoretically possible, I do not believe it is relevant. I also don't think they will abandon one of the three families of vehicles.

This is just simple math. In my view, paying attention to the math is not being pessimistic. Believing that this whole program is going to implode is pessimistic as it is optimistic to believe there's not going to be any divergence from the current plan.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was a bit of a rhetorical question.  Quick Kill can deal with horizontal threats.

Heh... I thought you might have been saying that.

I think too many conclusions are being drawn based on the orientation of the tubes.  Perhaps they are oriented horizontally to improve efficiency against the highest velocity threats?

I'm really not boned up on details of these proposed systems, but I do know that if you're trying to intercept the angle and the munition (currently) are tied together. Generally it's a lot harder to score a kill on the perpendicular, so if the tube is mounted horizontally it is most likely protecting the horizon only.

So to recap... I think the current position should be that Russia's new APS defenses offer no (or little) protection against a top attack weapon until there is solid information to suggest otherwise.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh... I thought you might have been saying that.

I'm really not boned up on details of these proposed systems, but I do know that if you're trying to intercept the angle and the munition (currently) are tied together. Generally it's a lot harder to score a kill on the perpendicular, so if the tube is mounted horizontally it is most likely protecting the horizon only.

So to recap... I think the current position should be that Russia's new APS defenses offer no (or little) protection against a top attack weapon until there is solid information to suggest otherwise.

Steve

I would think against a western opponent on a near future battlefield ATGM threats are likely to be from the top (Javelins, Hellfires), with horizontal threats primarily being KE penetrators.

So if the new APS is really geared towards horizontal threats it would lead me to believe one of two things is true:

1. They realized they are technically incapable of defeating top-attack munitions, or

2. Armata in general is really designed to fight Russia's weaker neighbors.

More likely I think the system does in fact have some ability to detect and counter a top-attack weapon. Can it do it well? Who knows..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second. Have I missed something here? According to the Jane's article Armata has both vertical and horizontal APS launchers.

 

EDIT: Ok, I missed a few posts.

 

In my view there are some problems with non-APS explanations for the vertically-oriented boxes. 1) Storage bins typically have lids or some sort of overhead cover, particularly if those bins are intended to store munitions.  These boxes are open air. 2) Mounting smoke dischargers vertically makes no sense unless you want a smoke screen directly above the vehicle.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think against a western opponent on a near future battlefield ATGM threats are likely to be from the top (Javelins, Hellfires), with horizontal threats primarily being KE penetrators.

Absolutely. The prolific quantities of Javelins out there pretty much guarantees a major threat would be from top attack. Not to mention the air forces be definition are top attack. Though I'd love to see an APS that could defeat something like an A-10. Now that would be nifty :D

This means the new Russian vehicles are not much better off than the old when it comes to combatting the two biggest strengths the West has; top attack ATGMs and air power.

So if the new APS is really geared towards horizontal threats it would lead me to believe one of two things is true:

1. They realized they are technically incapable of defeating top-attack munitions, or

2. Armata in general is really designed to fight Russia's weaker neighbors.

More likely I think the system does in fact have some ability to detect and counter a top-attack weapon. Can it do it well? Who knows..

Until there is solid evidence that Russia has such a system AND proof that it works (as well as to what degree) I think we should presume the APS is horizontal defense only. It's the most logical position to hold at this stage.

I also have repeatedly voiced my opinion that, realistically, Armata is in a bad "middle ground" in practical terms. Specifically, not good enough to seriously challenge NATO forces and overkill for dealing with its non-NATO neighbors. Given the economic problems associated with this program I would have advised going a different route.

Wait a second. Have I missed something here? According to the Jane's article Armata has both vertical and horizontal APS launchers.

 

EDIT: Ok, I missed a few posts.

 

In my view there are some problems with non-APS explanations for the vertically-oriented boxes. 1) Storage bins typically have lids or some sort of overhead cover, particularly if those bins are intended to store munitions.  These boxes are open air. 2) Mounting smoke dischargers vertically makes no sense unless you want a smoke screen directly above the vehicle.

Directly above is what we were talking about in the "soft kill" department. The detection determines if the threat is horizontal or vertical and fires IR blocking smock to the side or top as needed. The idea is to confuse the missile just enough that it misses. It's probable that this would be fairly effective a good portion of the time *if* the vehicle is also on the move at a significant speed. The margin of error for hitting a moving vehicle in the last few seconds is likely pretty huge.

Firing smoke in the correct arc is probably something that the Russians are capable of producing. It still requires a pretty sophisticated detection system, but I'd give Russia the benefit of the doubt that it is capable of fielding such a system.

Let's also keep in mind the stage of development. These vehicles are prototypes and that means the dispensers could be placeholders for a system that hasn't yet been developed. Any number of reasons could crop up where the system never makes it to the field. We simply don't know yet.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who forgot or missed the video that shows how Quick Kill works, and those who does not understand why AKD's question was rhetorical:

 

And my point is Quick Kill is a system that has been in development for about 12+ years and is still not ready for field use. So the answer about whether a vertically launched system can take care of horizontal threats is still an unknown because nobody has such a system yet. As I've repeatedly pointed out, just because something appears to work generally pretty well doesn't mean it does it well enough to be fielded. Or do I have to mention Sgt. York yet again? :)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May a top smoke screen be affective against drone attacks?

 

Drones are cheaper than an air force, right? Maybe that´s the threat the system is supposed to defeat, not javelins 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Perhaps they are oriented horizontally to improve efficiency against the highest velocity threats?

 

Oh, that's actually a very valid point.

 

Not sure why you're doing this, just you don't want to believe the Russian economic breakdown? Whatever you think or try, it is fact that financial future of Russia is not nice.

 

Because both you and the guy in the article were "just repeating what you thought the guy was saying" and "it's not like it's your own mf thought in the matter". "2300 Armata tanks" is a legendary statement by now, and it's wrong from the beginning, because it's a giant misunderstanding. The actual plan for ГПВ-2020 was to get 2300 new armored vehicles. That includes BTR-82A, upgraded T-72B3s, and even upgraded BTR-80->BTR-82AM.

 

From what I've seen so far, people who scream "OMG Russian economy is crumbling!", just want to "see the bad guys fail" (a widespread psychological desire), and don't really want to look at the actual facts and numbers, which is imperative for doing an actual economical analysis.

 

CAST is Moscow-based think tank group, consist of various experts. I don't really understand why you are blaming most well known Russian think-tank group, but they tried to reform the RuAF. Putin accepted their 'opinion' during Sochi forum. Sorry for Rus navy, but Russia just can't afford all of the plans.

 

You don't know Russian, do you? I've read both the original report and CAST's statement about Putin's acceptance. It's nothing more than a PR attempt. The outcome of the Sochi meeting about procurement did fall in line with their report's suggestion and they did not want to miss such PR opportunity to come out and say, and I quote, "Therefore, we can state that Russian higher authorities have practically listened to our recommendations". Practically. They are commercial organization. Saying that Putin himself agrees with their suggestions/reports is a PR move. Doesn't mean their report is wrong, no, I do agree with it very much. Especially the part about plane and heli procurement.

 

why a Russian doesn't want to contemplate

 

Arrogance is so arrogant this time of year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Directly above is what we were talking about in the "soft kill" department. The detection determines if the threat is horizontal or vertical and fires IR blocking smock to the side or top as needed. The idea is to confuse the missile just enough that it misses. It's probable that this would be fairly effective a good portion of the time *if* the vehicle is also on the move at a significant speed. The margin of error for hitting a moving vehicle in the last few seconds is likely pretty huge.

Firing smoke in the correct arc is probably something that the Russians are capable of producing. It still requires a pretty sophisticated detection system, but I'd give Russia the benefit of the doubt that it is capable of fielding such a system.

 

I actually think this is the most likely explanation rather than the horizonal-only theory. The objection to this seems to be that there are no radars "pointing upwards". But that's not entirely true and in a soft-kill scenario it may not be necessary. The radars are angled slightly upwards at about a 30 degree angle (my estimation from eyeballing the overhead pics). This would be adequate to detect Javelin during its approach phase and probably the early stages of its terminal phase, which is when you would want to deploy your multi-spectral smoke screen anyways.

 

This is the only explanation for the vertical boxes that makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my point is Quick Kill is a system that has been in development for about 12+ years and is still not ready for field use. So the answer about whether a vertically launched system can take care of horizontal threats is still an unknown because nobody has such a system yet. As I've repeatedly pointed out, just because something appears to work generally pretty well doesn't mean it does it well enough to be fielded. Or do I have to mention Sgt. York yet again? :)

 

LOL. The video is a proof of concept that shows that it's possible. Afghanit's APS munitions give (me, personally) an impressions that they're following the same route. It's an answer to those who do not understand how it may work. How it actually works, and how good it works, is a completely different question. But NOTHING can nullify the fact that such method of interception is possible. Saying that "if US can't field it, then nobody can" is not an argument. Russians and Israelis are the ones with the most experience on APS so far, and not the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probable that this would be fairly effective a good portion of the time *if* the vehicle is also on the move at a significant speed. The margin of error for hitting a moving vehicle in the last few seconds is likely pretty huge.

 

Forgot about this. Yes, it could be very effective for moving vehicles but may only degrade the precision of the missile if the vehicle is stationary since AFAIK Javelin will home in on the last known location of the target if it loses lock.

 

There is an intriguing possibility here. Given that Armata is claimed to have the ability to automatically reverse the tank if the crew is incapacitated I wonder if the same reaction could be tethered to activation of the APS.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Russia's ability to buy these things. It's not really as big of an issue as it's being made out to be.

 

Let's say that Russia's defense budget is 50 billion per year USD. That is lower than what they are claiming to spend (80+ billion USD) but is probably more in line with economic realities. Lets further say for simplicity's sake that Russian is going to procure 500 vehicles per year at an average price of 6 million USD per vehicle (by comparison a new M1 Abrams costs around 8 million). That calculates out to 3 billion per year for Armata production, or 6% of our projected budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. The video is a proof of concept that shows that it's possible.

Argh... here we go again... NO IT DOES NOT. You really need to stop confusing theoretical possibilities with demonstrable capabilities. That test shows that under carefully controlled circumstances it worked at least one time, nothing more. Sgt York passed many such tests and yet it was never fielded because in the end because it didn't work well enough to be practical. Here's another one:

That video was in 2006. How many super sonic ATGM systems are in service today? Zero. So yeah, it's theoretically possible, and the US spent a huge bundle of money on proving it, but obviously there was at least one major drawback that prevents the system from being deployed.

Tests mean nothing on their own.

Afghanit's APS munitions give (me, personally) an impressions that they're following the same route. It's an answer to those who do not understand how it may work.

I understand how it may work. I just don't confuse things on the drawing board with things that are proven to be practical.

How it actually works, and how good it works, is a completely different question. But NOTHING can nullify the fact that such method of interception is possible.

It is also possible to produce artificial steak from chemicals which have the consistency, flavor, and nutrition of real beef. People outside the lab have actually taste tested these things. So is it possible? Sure it is. But until the get the price down below $10,000 a pound it's not going to be in the supermarkets anytime. Who knows how many years that is going to take, so until it happens it effectively doesn't exist.

Saying that "if US can't field it, then nobody can" is not an argument. Russians and Israelis are the ones with the most experience on APS so far, and not the US.

Agreed that both Russia and Israel have more experience with APS, but mostly because the US simply didn't care about fielding these systems until recently. Plus, if you don't think that Israelis are involved with Quick Kill then you don't know much about how the US defense industry works.

Arrogance is so arrogant this time of year.

Which is exactly what I was thinking as you reject the article so thoroughly. Because the math is there and to dismiss it out of hand smacks of, well, arrogance. Or denial.

Forget about the 2300 number as it's not relevant to the analysis any more than the Armata breakdown pre-parade indicates the vehicle is a piece of junk. And if it bothers you so much, how about reading this article that doesn't mention the number you find so offensive?

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/russia-military-spending-by-sergei-guriev-2015-05#czGypGjyIrHVBt7h.99

The analysis you conveniently brushed aside was purely aimed at the defense spending ALREADY HAPPENING. It is using official Russian government data. So what do you disagree with? The Russian economic data put out by the Russian government or do you disagree that it is impossible for a nation to sustain 6% to 9% of GDP in defense spending in a peacetime economy without massive (negative) repercussions?

As for your implications that I'm pursuing some sort of vendetta against Russia, you can do that only if you ignore pretty much everything I've said. In case you missed it, I said that the US could not sustain a 6%-9% peace time defense budget either, and it is the largest, most diverse, and richest economy on the face of the Earth. In fact, the US economy is having a difficult time with its current budget (IIRC it's around 4%). Deficit spending gives the illusion of sustainability, but at some point the illusion will shatter and reality will be rather nasty when it does.

So you can try as hard as you can to make this seem like some sort of Russian specific position, but you're still going to be wrong.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot about this. Yes, it could be very effective for moving vehicles but may only degrade the precision of the missile if the vehicle is stationary since AFAIK Javelin will home in on the last known location of the target if it loses lock.

 

There is an intriguing possibility here. Given that Armata is claimed to have the ability to automatically reverse the tank if the crew is incapacitated I wonder if the same reaction could be tethered to activation of the APS.

Yup, I am pretty sure that's in their mind. I don't see much practical purpose for a remote driving system enough to justify the expense except for this sort of thing. Having said that...

The primary problem is the "TacAI" necessary to get the vehicle to act sensibly in a split second without making things worse. Anybody who has played Combat Mission (and that is everybody here ;)) knows exactly what I'm talking about. In real life it's far, far, far worse than any CM situation. If the tank suddenly accelerates in a direction where infantry are standing... not good. If it goes over an embankment... not good. If it crashes into another Armata trying to avoid a different missile... not good. Etc.

 

 

RE: Russia's ability to buy these things. It's not really as big of an issue as it's being made out to be.

 

Let's say that Russia's defense budget is 50 billion per year USD. That is lower than what they are claiming to spend (80+ billion USD) but is probably more in line with economic realities. Lets further say for simplicity's sake that Russian is going to procure 500 vehicles per year at an average price of 6 million USD per vehicle (by comparison a new M1 Abrams costs around 8 million). That calculates out to 3 billion per year for Armata production, or 6% of our projected budget.

The only real way to analyze Russian spending on this program is to look at it in context of Russia's entire budget. Currently, according to Russian numbers, the government is spending far more on defense as a percentage of its total budget than experts feel is sustainable for the length of time needed to make the entire project, from R&D to deployment, successful according to Russia's stated plans/goals.

As I said earlier, this does not mean it's necessarily going to fail. But something is going to have to give. My guess is R&D will be slowed so that the 2019/2020 timeframe is missed *or* they will cut things off the vehicles to make the timeframe. Then there's going to be the issue of affording them. That is a little harder to determine since it means predicting the price of oil and the overall health of the Russian economy in 5 years time. That's a wild guess for anybody. Next 2-3 years is more or less what is within the range of predictability.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue to amuse me, Steve. :lol: 
 
/me says "vid shows that it's possible"
 

Argh... here we go again... NO IT DOES NOT.
-skip-
Tests mean nothing on their own.

 
Then says
 

It is also possible to produce artificial steak from chemicals which have the consistency, flavor, and nutrition of real beef. People outside the lab have actually taste tested these things. So is it possible? Sure it is.

 
Should I even say anything here?
 

The analysis you conveniently brushed aside was purely aimed at the defense spending ALREADY HAPPENING. It is using official Russian government data. So what do you disagree with? The Russian economic data put out by the Russian government or do you disagree that it is impossible for a nation to sustain 6% to 9% of GDP in defense spending in a peacetime economy without massive (negative) repercussions?

 

So is it already happening, possible or impossible? And what are these repercussions?

 

As for your implications that I'm pursuing some sort of vendetta against Russia, you can do that only if you ignore pretty much everything I've said. In case you missed it, I said that the US could not sustain a 6%-9% peace time defense budget either, and it is the largest, most diverse, and richest economy on the face of the Earth. In fact, the US economy is having a difficult time with its current budget (IIRC it's around 4%). Deficit spending gives the illusion of sustainability, but at some point the illusion will shatter and reality will be rather nasty when it does.

So you can try as hard as you can to make this seem like some sort of Russian specific position, but you're still going to be wrong.

 

Never said I see it as vendetta. I do see a certain psychological pattern in some posts around the internet, this forum included, however. And it gets boring. /me yawns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Russia's ability to buy these things. It's not really as big of an issue as it's being made out to be.

 

Let's say that Russia's defense budget is 50 billion per year USD. That is lower than what they are claiming to spend (80+ billion USD) but is probably more in line with economic realities. Lets further say for simplicity's sake that Russian is going to procure 500 vehicles per year at an average price of 6 million USD per vehicle (by comparison a new M1 Abrams costs around 8 million). That calculates out to 3 billion per year for Armata production, or 6% of our projected budget.

 

Don't you dare be reasonable! Can't you see, Russian economy is crumbling to the 90s levels? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary problem is the "TacAI" necessary to get the vehicle to act sensibly in a split second without making things worse. Anybody who has played Combat Mission (and that is everybody here ;)) knows exactly what I'm talking about. In real life it's far, far, far worse than any CM situation. If the tank suddenly accelerates in a direction where infantry are standing... not good. If it goes over an embankment... not good. If it crashes into another Armata trying to avoid a different missile... not good. Etc.

 

 

 

I thought this very same thing imaging this "automatic system" (that drives the tank if the crew do not respon) in action within the game... Even if this feature is true and will be shown later on, I wonder if it would be recommandable to add in in game. Anyway, the Armata would have several interesting elements already (rotating smoke dischargers, to say one).

Edited by Kieme(ITA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I am pretty sure that's in their mind. I don't see much practical purpose for a remote driving system enough to justify the expense except for this sort of thing. Having said that...

The primary problem is the "TacAI" necessary to get the vehicle to act sensibly in a split second without making things worse. Anybody who has played Combat Mission (and that is everybody here ;)) knows exactly what I'm talking about. In real life it's far, far, far worse than any CM situation. If the tank suddenly accelerates in a direction where infantry are standing... not good. If it goes over an embankment... not good. If it crashes into another Armata trying to avoid a different missile... not good. Etc.

 

For sure. I think that making the autonomous reaction part of the APS makes more sense than the stated purpose. For the onboard computer the question of "is there an incoming missile at top-attack altitude, yes/no?" is easier to answer than "Is Boris really dead or did his heart rate monitor come loose again?"

 

As I said earlier, this does not mean it's necessarily going to fail. But something is going to have to give. My guess is R&D will be slowed so that the 2019/2020 timeframe is missed *or* they will cut things off the vehicles to make the timeframe.

 

Agreed, but how important is meeting the 2019/2020 time frame anyways? My impression is that the date was chosen more or less arbitrarily rather than because that's when they are going to retake Estonia or something. The United States is really the only country anymore that still buys large numbers of new armored vehicles in short time spans. Germany is buying 350 Pumas between now and 2020. France has build 800 or so Leclercs over the past 20 years, nearly half of them for export. The UK built 450 or so Challenger 2s and then called it good. Pumping out thousands of Armatas in a few years only makes sense of your goal is to match the US which is plainly impossible even with a good economy.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue to amuse me, Steve. :lol:

No doubt :D

 

/me says "vid shows that it's possible"

 

 

Then says

 

 

Should I even say anything here?

You should concede the point, but you instead are ignoring it. Let me see if I can make this easier for you to understand.

It is possible that under the carefully controlled circumstances of that test that a horizontal attack can be engaged by a vertically launched interception. That is all the test shows. Now, if the question was limited to this extremely narrow and specific point I'd not be arguing with you. Because clearly the test shows that under carefully controlled circumstances it can do just that.

However, the discussion was about this being a feasible weapon system to mount on any vehicle, US or Russian or Israeli, within the next few years. There is not any evidence to suggest that it is. None. Even if a system is developed which can effectively intercept horizontal attacks from a vertical launch, consistently and within various parameters, then one has to ask if it can be practically deployed. Many factors work into this equation.

The Germans modified a tank to run on hydraulics. Tests proved it was possible to do and they even modified at least one tank to work with the system. That was 70 years ago. How many hydraulic powered vehicles, not to mention tanks, are there in the world? None? Right. So what good is it to show something is "possible" if one can not also show that it is "practical"?

Do you understand?

 

So is it already happening, possible or impossible?

Is what already happening? Pressure building on the Russian state's ability to function effectively to meet the needs of its people? Absolutely. Non-defense spending projects curtailed/cancelled due to economic reality? Absolutely. Large segments of the population working without pay for months at a time instead of being laid off? Yup, that too.

And what are these repercussions?

Potentially the collapse of the Russian government, as with the Soviet government before it for almost identical reasons. But shy of that, decreasing services and quality of life for the average Russian person compared to previous years. How exactly is up to the decisions of the Russian government so I can not predict the specifics.

OK, you keep peppering me with questions. How about answering one for me? Here's a quote from the article I just linked to:

That debate began in 2011, when then-President Dmitri Medvedev proposed raising military spending by $600 billion, taking it from under 3% to above 4% of GDP, over ten years. When then-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin – who had presided over budget surpluses, helped to build up the reserve fund and cut state debt considerably – argued that Russia could not afford such an increase, he was fired. The plan was adopted soon after.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/russia-military-spending-by-sergei-guriev-2015-05#ljSecM793sClOxOz.99

 

I'm curious to know what expertise you have, or can at lest cite, that refutes the knowledge of Russia's former Finance Minister regarding the sustainability of long term defense spending in excess of 4%. If you can not, then what do you think that means for the Russian state?

Never said I see it as vendetta. I do see a certain psychological pattern in some posts around the internet, this forum included, however. And it gets boring. /me yawns

Then you are coloring my comments with your own bias. I am brining this up in this thread because it is directly relevant to the discussion we're having. If we were talking about a US program I would make similar arguments if they were applicable. I know you want to ignore the economics because it isn't as fun as talking about smoke dischargers, but in the end economics is far more important than the angle of an APS launch tube.

I'll say this again as clearly as I can... Russia can not afford 4%+ GDP spending on defense under current economic conditions during peace time. Very, very few nations can. The list of countries that are in the 4%+ range is extremely small:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Given this fact, and that the projections from Russia's own government sources indicate spending might account for 9% this year, I am very curious to hear why you think this is sustainable.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Agreed, but how important is meeting the 2019/2020 time frame anyways? My impression is that the date was chosen more or less arbitrarily rather than because that's when they are going to retake Estonia or something. The United States is really the only country anymore that still buys large numbers of new armored vehicles in short time spans. Germany is buying 350 Pumas between now and 2020. France has build 800 or so Leclercs over the past 20 years, nearly half of them for export. The UK built 450 or so Challenger 2s and then called it good. Pumping out thousands of Armatas in a few years only makes sense of your goal is to match the US which is plainly impossible even with a good economy.

 

 

Yeah, and if only there was some sort of official statement about procurement numbers in the near future. :D Like, they came out and said, "we won't start mass production till 2019-2020". Obviously, never happened, right? :P

 

And for those who want to actually dig the numbers, the old ГПВ-2020 used 14% of the whole military budget on Ground Forces alone (and they are separate from VDV, btw). That number has been increased recently, after Sochi meeting with Putin, regarding procurement.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...